Supreme Court Handing Down Ruling in Campaign Finance Reform (main parts upheld)

FOX News | 10 Dec 2003 | FOX News

[July 4th]

Reports that main portions of McCain-Feingold are now being upheld! People currently wading through a decision of over 300 pages.

[cc2k]

concerned about politics wrote:

---

The NRA can run ads like "Support the NRA. Hunting is alive and well in the U.S." Where's the politrical ad? That's not political. It's about sports! Right to life - "Supprt the family values and tradition. " No politics there.

---

So, you are admitting that this law restricts free speech. Or are you saying that in order to violate the first amendment, it would have to eliminate all speech. Since some speech is still allowed, there is still freedom of speech. We just shouldn't talk about the forbidden topics, but that's not really a restriction on our freedom.

It's sad that so many people (including some of the robed ones in the courts) would agree with that position.

[JCEccles]

I thought you liked CFR. Do you not consider it a superior piece of legislation? Your posts in toto seem to give than impression.

[ought-six]

"Said O'Connor, 'Based on International law, we find that all speech that criticizes any sitting politician shall be outlawed...so it is written...' "

You have got to be kidding.

[Sir_Ed]

" It does, however, keep those nasty ads off my TV and my radio."

So...just because you think an ad is "nasty" you believe it should be banned?

The people on the other side think OUR ads for Pro-Life and the soon-to-be-banned 2nd Amendment are nasty, so it's okay when "nasty" ads get banned?

This is breaking my heart.

Today is a day that I will look back upon, year after year, with horror, as bad as Roe v. Wade.

I'm getting closer to voting only for truly conservative candidates, and to hell with the consequences...

Ed

[Who is John Galt?]

Congress was given the power to regulate the manner of holding elections under the constitution and the first amendment does not change that.

Using your asinine sustitute for reasoning, it would be 'constitutional' for Congress to reinstitute human slavery, if it was done as part of regulating an election.

"Flush out your headgear, New Guy!"

Freedom of speech is not absolute and is restricted in many appropriate situations.

Did I say it was absolute? Hmm? If "the freedom of speech, or of the press" are to be abridged, however, they may not be abridged by "Congress."

How is this restriction any different than those preventing electioneering within 100 yards of the polling places? They are violations of an absolute freedom of speech as well.

Oh, that's a wonderful argument: 'one unconstitutional law justifies another.' How nice...

;>)

[WackyKat]

I realize it is difficult to believe but the Sheeple appear to be waking up and the day of RATmedia control is ending.

That you could say this proves definitively that you don't understand this law or its effect at all.

The relative influence of the liberal media will be greatly increased by it, as the voices of citizens groups are banned from the media

[KantianBurke]

I hope Jim Robinson puts his two cents in soon.

Could you please ping me if and when he says something regarding this case and its effect on FR? Thanks!

[ThinkDifferent]

As far as I'm concerned. F-them. That law is not worthy of being followed.

Ditto.

[Howlin]

Kool-Aid Republicans are in the minority around here

Actually, it's the Unappeasable Conservatives who are in short supply, here and in the real world; you just are willing to see it.

And in case you missed it:

To: RWR8189

Well, guess I can't speak for all of the Republican base, but if we don't like Bush, we can always elect Dean or Clark or Sharpton or Braun or Kucinich or Kerry or Gephardt or Lieberman, et al. Anyone for drafting Hillary Clinton? They're all highly qualified candidates. One thing for sure, we'll have to study our voter guides long and hard this election. Wouldn't want to make any mistakes. Now, you Gore voters out there, be sure not to punch the chad for Buchanan this time. Bwaahahahahahhahaha!

11 posted on 12/05/2003 1:01:30 AM EST by Jim Robinson (All your ZOTS are belong to us.)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Jim Robinson]

Well, guess I can't speak for all of the Republican base, but if we don't like Bush, we can always elect Dean or Clark or Sharpton or Braun or Kucinich or Kerry or Gephardt or Lieberman, et al. Anyone for drafting Hillary Clinton? They're all highly qualified candidates. One thing for sure, we'll have to study our voter guides long and hard this election. Wouldn't want to make any mistakes. Now, you Gore voters out there, be sure not to punch the chad for Buchanan this time. Bwaahahahahahhahaha!

[Weimdog]

SCALIA SUMS IT UP -

Justice Scalia, in his opinion, writes, "This is a sad day for freedom of speech." He then adds, "Who could have imagined that the same Court which, within the past four years, has sternly disapproved of restrictions upon such inconsequential forms of expression as virtual child pornography...tobacco advertising...dissemination of illegally intercepted communications...and sexually explicit cable programming...would smile with favor upon a law that cut to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government."

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp

[aristeides]

Links available at http://electionlawblog.org/.

[Mo1]

This could go either way, depending on events between now and then, but the CFR law will have no impact

True .. I see some signs of that now with ads

[Howlin]

I was sure the Supreme Court was going to gut this bill.

But you're not going to vote for Bush because he thought the same thing?

[deport]

has anyone seen the opinion?

---

Why?...... No need to... Lots of opinions here....

[concerned about politics]

They won't starve any time soon. According to Forbes, Soros was worth $5 billion before the recent run-up in stocks. His $15 million initial donation to Move On is chump change to him, less than 0.3% of his total wealth.

Nah. His money will eventually end. He has a limit. He can't supprt the left forever. The American citizen will keep plugging along. Remember, we have our wealthy, too. It's just not as well reported.
We have a lot of conservative organizations that are right out in the community. We have traditional values that are supported naturally. We have contacts, where the liberal elite have to buy their support.

[Steve_Seattle]

"You really believe that the ads and information will stop because of CFR??"

No, they will just become more dishonest, more devious, more subject to review by lawyers and spin doctors, and more removed from the average person. Years ago, the Court abolished the poll tax as being a barrier to citizen participation in the electoral process; now they have sancioned a highly-complex set of barriers to citizen participation, barriers only understandable to sophisticated lawyers and legal experts, and only enforcable with a complex bureaucracy.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Nonsense piled on nonsense is still nonsense. Article I, Section 4 of the US constitution gives Congress the right to regulate elections.

You can't go into a polling place and start to give a speech for a candidate now can you? Or had out campaign literature supporting a candidate? Outside Chicago that is.

That is clearly a violation of free speech now isn't it?

[JCEccles]

As for CFR, should we follow your eerily appropriate screen name and "justshutupandtakeit"? ;-)

[July 4th]

Opinion is here: http://electionlawblog.org/

[smith288]

You have got to be kidding.

She never said it...but she thought it.